Paul Ryan



Paul D. Ryan, Jr. (born January 29, 1970) has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 1999, representing the First Congressional District of Wisconsin. He is currently chairman of the House Budget Committee, and is known for his 2011 "Path to Prosperity" budget and his deficit reduction plan Roadmap for America's Future.

On April 5, 2011, Ryan introduced the "Path to Prosperity"  House budget that includes many elements of his Roadmap, including cutting the top income tax rate by nearly a third, from 35 percent to 25 percent, dismantling Medicaid and cutting Medicare, among other budget cuts. The budget passed the House on April 15 along party lines (with four Republicans opposed) but is not expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. In response to Ryan's plan, President Barack Obama offered an alternative plan that purports to reduce deficits without dismantling social programs and cutting taxes on the rich (a comparison of the two programs can be found here).

Rep. Ryan gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 25 2011.

Rep. Ryan was a vocal supporter of the 2008 Wall Street bailout and convinced fellow Republicans to vote for the bill. His impassioned speech in support of the $800 billion plan earned him a place in Michael Moore's documentary Capitalism: A Love Story. While the Tea Party arose, in part, as an angry response to the expensive bailout, Rep. Ryan has since positioned himself as a defender of the movement's cries for fiscal responsibility.

See also Roadmap for America's Future.

=Rep. Ryan's April 5, 2011 "Path to Prosperity" Budget Proposal=

Ryan announced his budget proposal in an April 5, 2011 press conference and in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. With Democrats controlling the Senate, the proposal is not expected to become law in the near future but explains the Republican agenda. Ryan claims the national debt would be $1.1 trillion less over the next five years than Obama's budget, but his assumptions and numbers have been called into question.

The plan would mostly privatize Medicare, and convert Medicaid from a guaranteed benefits program to a block grant state-managed program that would likely limit eligibility and benefits. Medicare and Medicaid currently account for 25 percent of the federal budget, but spending on those health programs and Social Security is expected to grow substantially in coming years; Ryan's plan is one of the first to suggest substantial reforms to these programs. Defense spending and Social Security are mostly unchanged from President Obama's proposed budget.

Ryan's plan would reduce the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent, repeal estate taxes, and institute a national sales tax that would likely have the greatest impact on America's poor-and middle-class. The plan's budget calculations rest on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") will be repealed (even though the Congressional Budget Office has said the healthcare reforms will produce budget gains over the next decade). The plan does not confront spending on the military and America's two wars (the most expensive parts of the federal budget).

The full plan can be found here. Ezra Klein has a brief summary of the "Path to Prosperity" here. The Congressional Budget Office has its analysis of the plan's budgetary impact (but not a cost estimate) here.

"Path" Assumes Incredible Growth and Focuses Only on Spending, Not Raising Taxes to Increase Revenue
The "Path to Prosperity" does not consider raising revenue to reduce the deficit, with Ryan saying "I do want higher revenues but I want to get them through economic growth," and that "if you raise revenues you take the pressure off of spending." However, critics such as Paul Krugman say Ryan's assumptions for economic growth reflect a "belief in the impossible:" the projections assume "unemployment will plunge right away; that by 2015 it will be down to the levels at the peak of the 1990s boom (and far below anything achieved under the sainted Ronald Reagan); and that by 2021 it will be below 3 percent, a level we haven’t seen in more than half a century."

On April 1, 2011, just before Ryan's budget was released, the International Monetary Fund released an assessment of the US' deficit problems and determined "the federal government can restore fiscal balance by raising all taxes and cutting all transfer payments immediately and for the indefinite future by 35 percent." (Read the IMF report here). The "Path," though, not only focuses exclusively on the spending side of the equation, but actually decreases taxes.

Krugman also points out that most of the "savings" from Ryan's ambiguous and severe spending cuts will not be directed at reducing the deficit, but financing the very large tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy. Considering that Ryan's assumptions on economic growth and employment rates are unrealistically rosy, the fall in revenue will likely be even larger than the plan anticipates. Krugman writes "the bottom line is obvious: this is not the budget of a deficit hawk. It’s the budget of a deficit exploiter, someone who is trying to use fears of red ink to push through a political agenda that includes major losses of revenue."

Ryan Cites Flawed Analysis by the Heritage Foundation
In his Wall Street Journal op-ed supporting his "Path to Prosperity," Ryan writes:
 * "A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year."

The Heritage Foundation Analysis was called "simply outlandish" by The Economist. David Weigel at Slate writes "Heritage sees unemployment falling, by 2018, to the lowest level since the roaring 20s -- and then going lower!" The Economist points out "when the Obama administration projected a 5.9% unemployment rate in 2015 falling to 5.3% by the end of the decade, the Congressional Budget Office chided it for excessive optimism. . . [the Heritage Foundation's] assumption, in other words, [is] unrealistic enough to be considered somewhat bizarre. Everyone puts a positive spin on their policy proposals. But fundamentally worthy policies shouldn't need to promise laughably overoptimistic outcomes to win support. Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, told TPMDC that analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "is what they use on the budget side -- as a matter of procedure, any numbers from the Heritage Foundation or anybody else are essentially worthless. . . You can assert whatever you want to assert, but you can always find some half-baked tax think tank that will make up any number you feel like."

Paul Krugman also points out that the Heritage analysis Ryan relies on assumes "housing investment in 2015 would be back to its level in 2006 — at the height of the housing bubble," and would continue rising. "You can’t have this kind of housing boom without massive borrowing," Krugman writes.

Matthew Yglesias points out that the Heritage Foundation also predicted in 2001 that President George W. Bush's tax cuts "would lead the country into a brave new era of prosperity."

Medicaid Reforms
The "Path" aims to turn Medicaid into a "block grant" program that gives state governors wide discretion on how it is spent. Healthcare advocates say this will lead to reduced benefits and make fewer people eligible for the program.

Ezra Klein at the Washington Post points out that, even though Ryan lists Medicaid under "welfare reform," two-thirds (67%) of Medicaid payouts go towards seniors and the disabled, not the poor. This is despite the fact that seniors and the disabled are only 25% of Medicaid's members. Klein notes that Medicaid is 20 percent cheaper than a private-insurance plan, and that converting Medicaid into block grants is not intended to reduce costs, but to limit eligibility and benefits.

Food Stamps
The "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," otherwise known as the food stamp program, is treated the same as Medicaid: block grants to states, indexed for inflation and population growth.

Medicare Slowly Eliminated
Ryan's "Path" would phase- out traditional pay-for-service Medicare, the government program providing health insurance coverage to persons 65 and older, and replace it with government subsidies for the elderly to obtain healthcare through private insurers. According to Ryan, "this is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model." The plan would be phased-in and only take effect for persons currently under age 55.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors will be paying on average 68% of their health care costs by 2030, more than twice as much than under current law. The economist Dean Baker points out seniors would end up spending most of their income on healthcare.

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed announcing the plan, Ryan writes: "starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options."

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) points out that this is an unfair comparison: members of Congress are only expected to pay 28% of their health care costs, in contrast to the 68% seniors will be paying under Ryan's "Path." What's more, with seniors' medical costs being even higher than the broader population, and the amount of the voucher fixed and not based on healthcare costs, the difference is even more striking. He writes: "when the plan takes effect in 2022, the average senior would receive $8,000 to buy insurance. Plans for Members of Congress cost $9,012 in 2010. What kind of health care plan will $8,000 buy in 2022 for our sickest and oldest seniors, when $9,000 can't buy a plan for a Member of Congress today?"

With healthcare costs rising, the Medicare reforms have been criticized by Democrats such as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, who says "all the risk of increased costs will be borne by seniors." He says "they're ending Medicare as we know it. They take away the Medicare guarantee for seniors."

Ryan has claimed the "Path's" Medicare proposal resembles the one he developed with Alice Rivlin, Brookings scholar and former advisor to President Bill Clinton, but Rivlin has said she does not support Ryan's plan. Rivlin says she does not want to eliminate Medicare entirely, and would increase the value of the vouchers at GDP+1 (inflation plus productivity growth (which is what GDP represents) plus one additional percentage point). She also states that she supports upholding the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), particularly in regards to its promotion of research and pilot programs aimed at reducing healthcare costs.

Ambiguous Cuts to Non-Discretionary Spending
Paul Krugman writes "the biggest source of supposed savings in the plan isn’t actually health care, it’s an assumption that federal spending on everything except health and Social Security can somehow be squeezed, as a percent of GDP, to a small fraction of current levels . . . Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP. That’s bigger than the assumed cut in health care spending relative to baseline; it accounts for all of the projected deficit reduction, since the alleged health savings are all used to finance tax cuts. And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Not explained. This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking."

Other Criticisms of the "Path to Prosperity"
In response to claims that Paul Ryan was "courageous" for confronting budget issues with difficult cuts, Chris Van Hollen said:


 * “To govern is to choose, and it is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies, and other big money special interests while slashing our investments in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans. That’s not courageous, it’s wrong.”

Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that Ryan's plan is expected to "shrink federal spending to about 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2015 and to 14.75 percent of GDP by 2050 — the lowest level since 1951, a time when Medicare and Medicaid did not exist."
 * "Yet, Medicare and Medicaid would actually fare better than most of the rest of the budget. Perhaps the single most stunning piece of information that the CBO report reveals is that Ryan's plan "specifies a path for all other spending" (other than spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest payments) to drop "from 12 percent [of GDP] in 2010 to 6 percent in 2022 and 3½ percent by 2050." These figures are extraordinary.  As CBO notes, "spending in this category has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II."Defense spending has equaled or exceeded 3 percent of GDP every year since 1940, and the Ryan budget does not envision defense cuts in real terms (although defense could decline a bit as a share of GDP).  Assuming defense spending remained level in real terms, most of the rest of the federal government outside of health care, Social Security, and defense would cease to exist."

"Path" passes House April 15, 2011
Ryan's budget passed the Republican-controlled House on April 15, 2011. No Democrats voted for the bill and four Republicans voted against it.

Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC) voted against the budget in part because it continues funding America's ongoing wars in the Middle East. While Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) also opposed President Obama's alternative proposal, he wrote that he voted against Ryan's bill because:


 * "My home state of West Virginia has the highest percentage of Medicare beneficiaries in the country, and I cannot support a plan that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined would nearly double out-of-pocket healthcare costs for future retirees. Unfortunately, Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy unless action is taken. However, I am not convinced that such a dramatic overhaul of benefits for future retirees is necessary to save the program."

=2011 Republican Response to President Obama's State of the Union address= Rep. Ryan delivered the Republican response to the 2011 State of the Union address, where he claimed that reducing spending is "imperative" because: "We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead."Ryan criticized President Obama's calls for "investments" to improve the economy, calling them tools of a "government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much."

Rep. Ryan also said: "Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody."

Paul Krugman took issue with Ryan's depiction of Europe, and wrote: "Greece maybe fits that description. But if you’d read anything about the euro crisis . . . you’d know that Ireland was running a budget surplus on the eve of the crisis, and had quite low debt. Its problems now have nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility in the past; they’re the consequence of weak financial regulation and the government’s too-generous bank bailout."


 * "On the eve of the financial crisis, conservatives had nothing but praise for Ireland, a low-tax, low-spending country by European standards. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranked it above every other Western nation. In 2006, George Osborne, now Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, declared Ireland “a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policy making.” And the truth was that in 2006-2007 Ireland was running a budget surplus, and had one of the lowest debt levels in the advanced world.


 * So what went wrong? The answer is: out-of-control banks; Irish banks ran wild during the good years, creating a huge property bubble. When the bubble burst, revenue collapsed, causing the deficit to surge, while public debt exploded because the government ended up taking over bank debts. And harsh spending cuts, while they have led to huge job losses, have failed to restore confidence.


 * The lesson of the Irish debacle, then, is very nearly the opposite of what Mr. Ryan would have us believe. It doesn’t say “cut spending now, or bad things will happen”; it says that balanced budgets won’t protect you from crisis if you don’t effectively regulate your banks — a point made in the newly released report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which concludes that “30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation” helped create our own catastrophe. Have I mentioned that Republicans are doing everything they can to undermine financial reform?"

Krugman also takes issue with Ryan's depiction of the UK's financial situation, noting that British Prime Minister David Cameron has implemented austerity measures voluntarily, not in response to market pressure; "underlying that choice was the new British government’s adherence to the same theory offered by Republicans to justify their demand for immediate spending cuts here — the claim that slashing government spending in the face of a depressed economy will actually help growth rather than hurt it." However, the British economy has not recovered as hoped. "Mr. Ryan is widely portrayed as an intellectual leader within the G.O.P., with special expertise on matters of debt and deficits. So the revelation that he literally doesn’t know the first thing about the debt crises currently in progress is, as I said, interesting — and not in a good way."

=Roadmap For America's Future= Visit the Roadmap for America's Future SourceWatch entry for information on Paul Ryan's "Roadmap."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has said "Ryan's Roadmap . . . is a timebomb for [the Republican party]: It doesn't just privatize Medicare, but it holds costs down by giving seniors checks that won't keep up with the price of health care. It privatizes much of Social Security. It cuts taxes on the rich while raising them on many in the middle class." Despite raising taxes on nearly 90% of Americans and cutting entitlement programs, the Roadmap's massive tax cuts for the rich are expected to result in a budget deficit of between $1.3 and 2 trillion over the next decade.

= House Budget Committee =

Rep. Ryan is the Chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee.

January 2011 House Budget Rules
In January 2011, newly-sworn in House Republicans (who had just taken control after the 2010 midterm elections) passed a number of new rules that will greatly empower Rep. Ryan in his role as Budget Committee Chair.

The rules will make it easier for Ryan to almost unilaterally force reductions in spending, granting him what the Economic Policy Institute calls "“interim” authority to set committee allocations and revenue and spending levels for the remainder of FY2011 without any vote of approval. Using this power, Chairman Ryan is expected to slash the non-security discretionary budget for the remainder of this fiscal year by more than 20% relative to the president’s budget request (the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security will be exempted)." The rules give Rep. Ryan the ability to refuse "Senate appropriations bills exceeding the levels set by Ryan could be ruled out of order in the House, essentially allowing the House Budget Committee chairman to hold the government’s operating budget hostage to his preferences or face a government shutdown."

The 2011 rules overturn rules governing "reconciliation" (a procedure used to circumvent filibuster votes) that were aimed at avoiding increases in the deficit; under the new rules, Ryan has the power to pass a budget resolution for sweeping, unfunded tax cuts. According to EPI:


 * "Through the 1990s, reconciliation instructions (which originate from the budget committees) were intended and used as a tool to reduce deficits. In the early 2000s, the reconciliation process took a U-turn and was used to pass legislation first draining surpluses and the then increasing deficits. Notably, reconciliation was used to pass the unpaid for Bush-era tax cuts, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes added $2.6 trillion to the public debt between 2001 and 2010.


 * After watching surpluses turn to chronic deficits, the 110th Congress in 2007 ruled that budget resolutions would be out of order if they included reconciliation directives that would increase the deficit. But now that rule has been reversed, and Ryan has the power to pass a budget resolution instructing sweeping, unfunded tax cuts."

According to the Washington Post, the rules "make it easier to increase the national debt by exempting trillions of dollars in GOP priorities from pay-as-you-go rules put in place by Democrats. For example, House Republicans could extend Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy past their 2012 expiration or create a significant new tax break for businesses without regard for the holes those policies would blow in the nation's finances." The Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules were instituted to prevent new legislation from widening deficits or squandering surpluses; any piece of legislation that increased mandatory spending or decreased revenue had to be fully offset with spending cuts and/or tax increases to ensure deficit-neutrality (unless granted an emergency designation). According to the Economic Policy Institute: "Under the new House rules, PAYGO has been replaced with a bizarre Cut-As-You-Go (CUTGO) rule, which requires that new mandatory spending be offset only by spending decreases and explicitly exempts all tax cuts from requiring offsets."

EPI states that "[u]nder the new House rules and leadership of Chairman Ryan, it will be easier to pass massive unfunded tax cuts, easier to slash domestic investments, harder to pass routine legislation that tangentially increases mandatory spending, and impossible to use sensible reform of wasteful tax expenditures as offsets for public investments."

=Other Issues=

Health Care
Ryan voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), and also voted in favor of repealing the bill, despite the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office declaring that repeal will add $230 Billion more to the deficit.

Rep. Ryan has accepted over $660,000 in contributions from the insurance industry and over $1 million from the healthcare industry (Health Professionals $431,013, Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $230,592, Hospitals/Nursing Homes $180,477, Health Services/HMOs $161,392).

Insurance Industry Regulation
In 2010, John Nichols wrote in the Capital Times that Ryan "was one of just 19 members of the House who voted against a proposal to strip antitrust exemptions for insurance companies. According to the American Medical Association, most local markets in the U.S. are dominated by a single insurer. What that means is that there is no real competition, a circumstance that allows big insurers to impose radical rate hikes." Rep. Ryan has accepted over $660,000 in contributions from the insurance industry.

2008 Wall Street Bailout
Rep. Ryan was a major supporter of President George W. Bush's $800 billion Wall Street bailout, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110-343). Ryan rallied Republican votes for the bill, managing to overcome the instincts of many fiscal conservatives.

Ryan's impassioned speech in support of the bailout ("If we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us - if we fail to pass this I fear the worst is yet to come") earned him a featured spot in Michael Moore's film Capitalism: A Love Story.

John Nichols writes: "There was nothing fiscally responsible -- let alone necessary -- about the bailout. Indeed, it was such a bad deal that it spawned a popular revolt that gave rise to the tea party movement. Now Ryan positions himself as the champion of the tea party's call for debt relief."

Social Security (see also Roadmap to America's Future)
Ryan voted for the Social Security Protection Act of 2003 |11, designed to help the Social Security Administration's ability to protect it's program. He is working for reform, in particular limiting the ability of other branches of government to appropriate Social Security surplus funds, because the surplus will disappear as the Baby Boomers age. |12

In 2004, he introduced a reform bill |13 that would allow workers to shift a large portion of their Social Security payroll tax to financial index funds managed by private investment firms. Individuals exercising the private investment option would still receive SS benefits based only on the past amount they already paid into the traditional system. Critics argue that Ryan's plan would eventually defund traditional SS by discouraging participation at the expense of added risk for the promise of greater returns. Thereby circumventing the primary purpose and original intent of Social Security.

Ryan refused to respond to citizens on issues through the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT).

Earmarks

 * Over a recent three-year period, Ryan obtained more than $5.3 million in earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
 * He requested no earmarks in 2009 or 2010
 * In 2008, Ryan’s earmarks included $3.2 million for the Wisconsin statewide bus system, about $1.3 million for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in Wisconsin, and $750,000 for the Janesville City Transit System
 * Ryan, along with nine other senior House Republicans, in March 2010 urged a moratorium on earmarks as the “only way to wipe the slate clean and allow us to start getting spending under control”

Top Contributors by Industry (as of January 2011)

 * Insurance	$660,571
 * Retired	$644,246
 * Securities & Investment	$515,049
 * Health Professionals	$431,013
 * Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$301,400
 * Real Estate	$272,434
 * Commercial Banks	$260,995
 * Automotive	$250,150
 * Lawyers/Law Firms	$248,716
 * Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$230,592
 * Oil & Gas	$205,150
 * Accountants	$201,602
 * Leadership PACs	$194,699
 * Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$180,477
 * General Contractors	$175,400
 * Misc Finance	$174,339
 * Health Services/HMOs	$161,392
 * Building Materials & Equipment	$160,449
 * Retail Sales	$152,009
 * Telephone Utilities	$151,305

Top Individual Contributors (as of January 2011)
(total reflects both individual and PAC contributions)
 * Northwestern Mutual 	$70,300
 * National Beer Wholesalers Assn 	$70,000
 * AT&T Inc 	$65,350
 * National Auto Dealers Assn 	$63,500
 * National Assn of Home Builders 	$62,500
 * Koch Industries 	$60,500
 * Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors	$60,000
 * American Bankers Assn 	$51,045
 * Blue Cross/Blue Shield 	$48,650
 * Carpenters & Joiners Union 	$47,500
 * United Parcel Service 	$47,443
 * Abbott Laboratories 	$47,250
 * Associated General Contractors 	$46,200
 * Investment Co Institute 	$45,999
 * National Assn of Realtors 	$44,560
 * Credit Suisse Group 	$44,200
 * Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance 	$41,200
 * SC Johnson & Son 	$41,092
 * PricewaterhouseCoopers 	$38,693
 * American Hospital Assn 	$36,025

Background
Ryan was born January 29, 1970 in Janesville, Wisconsin. He graduated from Joseph A. Craig High School and later he attended Miami University in Ohio before entering the family construction business (Ryan Incorporated Central, founded in 1884 by his great-grandfather).

Ryan worked as an aide to U.S. Senator Bob Kasten in 1992 and as legislative director for Sam Brownback of Kansas from 1995 to 1997. He served as a speech writer at Empower America to Jack Kemp and William Bennett.

Congressional Career
He was first elected to the House in 1998 at the age of 28 running as a conservative in a heavily Democratic congressional district, when he defeated highly-profiled Lydia Spottswood 57%–42% to inherit the seat left by Mark Neumann.

He defeated perennial candidate Jeff Thomas in 2000, 2002 and 2004 by margins of 65%–34%, 67%–31% and 60%–38%. He was re-elected in 2008 by defeating Marge Krupp with 64% to 36% of the vote.

Ryan won the 2010 general election with 68% of the vote, defeating both Democratic nominee John Heckenlively (30%) and Libertarian nominee Joseph Kexel (2%).

Boards and other Affiliations

 * Member, Ducks Unlimited
 * Member, Janesville Bowmen, Incorporated
 * Board of Directors, Rock County Junior Achievement
 * Member, Saint Mary's Parish

Contact
DC Office: 1113 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4901 Phone:202-225-3031 Fax:202-225-3393 Web Email Website District Office- Janesville: 20 South Main Street, Suite 10 Janesville, WI 53545 Phone: 608-752-4050 Fax: 608-752-4711

District Office- Kenosha: 5712 7th Avenue Kenosha, WI 53140 Phone: 262-654-1901 Fax: 262-654-2156

District Office- Racine: 304 6th Street Racine, WI 53403 Phone: 262-637-0510 Fax: 262-637-5689

Campaign Contact Information
Official Ryan for Congress website

Ryan for Congress P.O. Box 1919 Janesville, WI 53547

[mailto:paul@ryanforcongress.com paul@ryanforcongress.com]

External resources

 * Official website
 * Campaign website
 * Critique of Ryan at ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

Local blogs and discussion sites

 * The Xoff Files